Ohio Supreme Court "Reasons Therefor" Project

Our project is to research the origins and observance of Ohio voters' mandate to their state Supreme Court in 1912:

The decisions in all cases in the Supreme Court shall be reported,
together with the reasons therefor.

That mandate is in the Ohio Constitution's Article IV, Section 2(C).

In recent years, the mandate has been contentious. A related case even reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021.

Summary History

After a constitutional convention in 1912, Ohio voters approved a mandate for their Supreme Court to report decisions "with the reasons therefor".

In 1925, the mandate appeared for the first time in a report. Justice Wanamaker stressed its wisdom while dissenting in State, ex. rel Durbin, v. Smith, Secretary of State, 102 Ohio St. 591, 651:

The Constitution of Ohio, as amended in 1912, wisely provided that "The decisions in all cases in the supreme court shall be reported together with the reasons therefor." Prior to that time the majority of the cases, often the big and most embarrassing ones, were decided without any opinion or without any "reasons therefor." The people of Ohio realized that the best test of reasonable judgments was sound "reasons therefor".

In 1968, Ohio voters moved the mandate to its own emphatic subsection, 2(C), through the Ohio Judicial System Reorganization Amendment, which is more commonly known as the Modern Courts Amendment.

Despite the mandate, Ohio's Supreme Court has frequently reported decisions without reporting "reasons therefor". For example, when a candidate in the March 2020 primary election asked the Court to mandate the election be held as scheduled despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court's reported decision text was merely this: "In Mandamus. Writ denied." State ex rel. Speweik v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2020-0382, 2020-Ohio-997. When a member of Ohio's House of Representatives then asked the Court to mandate that the reasons be provided, the Court denied the request and, again, reported its decision without any "reasons therefor". State ex rel. Brinkman v. O’Connor, et al., No. 2020-0389, 2020-Ohio-4053.

King John of England in Ron Anderson's The Signing of the Magna Carta, which is part of the Ohio Supreme Court's Rule of Law Gallery.

The importance of reported "reasons therefor" may be traced to the Magna Carta. Approved by King John in 1215, it established the primacy of the "law of the land". However, that "law" was not statutory law. Parliament and the first statutory law, the Statute of Merton of 1235, were still decades away. Instead, the "law of the land" was largely what judges had created to fill gaps in the limited written law that existed, like forest law. The "law of the land" was as different as the many different judges and courts that existed. Reasons for decisions began to be gathered and reported in "Year Books", starting around 1268. Over time, the Magna Carta's "law of the land" became synonymous with reported reasons for common decisions. What was descriptive became prescriptive.

Research Initiatives

  • In Progress:
    • Annotated Bibliography @ Zotero
    • Analysis of relevant information made available through the Harvard Law School's Caselaw Access Project. (That project has named this effort's senior researcher, Jon Freed, a "Research Scholar".)
    • Analysis of other states' similar constitutional provisions, identified via the Constitution Project 🔗:
      • Louisiana, 1845 - 1973. In pertinent part: “The judges of all courts shall refer to the law and adduce the reasons on which every definitive judgment is founded.” 🔗
      • South Carolina, 1845 - 1973. In pertinent part: “When a judgment or decree is reversed or affirmed by the Supreme Court every point made and distinctly stated in the cause and fairly arising upon the record of the case shall be considered and decided, and the reason thereof shall be concisely and briefly stated in writing and preserved with the record of the case.” South Carolina Constitution, Article V, Section 8. 🔗
      • West Virginia, since 1872. In pertinent part: “When a judgment or order of another court is reversed, modified or affirmed by the court, every point fairly arising upon the record shall be considered and decided; the reasons therefor shall be concisely stated in writing and preserved with the record”. West Virginia Constitution, Article VIII Section 4. 🔗
      • Washington, since 1889. In pertinent part: “In the determination of causes all decisions of the court shall be given in writing and the grounds of the decision shall be stated.” Washington Constitution, Article IV Section 2. 🔗
      • Utah, 1895 - 1984. In pertinent part: “When a judgment or decree is reversed, modified or affirmed by the Supreme Court, the reasons therefor shall be stated concisely in writing, signed by the judges concurring, filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and preserved with a record of the case.” Utah Constitution, Article VIII, Section 25. 🔗
      • Michigan, since 1908. In pertinent part: “Decisions of the supreme court, including all decisions on prerogative writs, shall be in writing and shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons for each decision and reasons for each denial of leave to appeal.” Michigan Constitution, Article VI Section 6. 🔗
      • Arizona, since 1912. In pertinent part: “The decisions of the court shall be in writing and the grounds stated.” Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 2. 🔗
    • Directory of Relevant People (Google Sheet)
    • Docket Data @ Kaggle
    • Identifying the cases Justice Wanamaker referred to as the "big and most embarrasing ones". State, ex. rel Durbin, v. Smith, supra.
    • Reasons Therefor Data Analysis @ Kaggle
    • Repositories @ GitHub
    • Thesis Brainstorming. Access by invitation only. Senior researcher Jon Freed is developing a thesis within the general topic of the "reasons therefor" clause. Freed is doing the thesis to fulfill a requirement for a Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Kenyon College.

Related News

    Therefor? Therefore?

    The spelling of "therefor" without a final "e" is not a mistake. As has been explained by the legal writing scholar Bryan Garner, "therefore" means "for that reason", "consequently", or "so", while "therefor" means "for that" or "for it". "Therefore" is usually found at the beginning of clauses and "therefor" at the end.

    Recent references on the court's website

    These search results and any ads within them are by Google's Programmable Search Engine. This website has no control over the ads.

    Acknowledgments

    The research referenced above is primarily the product of senior researcher Jonathan "Jon" Freed, who has done his work in relation to earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Kenyon College. All criticisms for errors and misunderstandings should be directed to him.

    The research has been furthered by encouragement and information from many people that include, but are certainly not limited to:

    • James Freed, Ph.D., Professor, Ohio Wesleyan University Department of Zoology
    • Judith Freed, M.Ed., Delaware City Schools
    • Glenn McNair, Ph.D., Professor, Kenyon College Department of History, Advisor.
    • Via a request for information about the Modern Courts Amendment of 1968:
      • David A. Hejmanowski, J.D., Judge, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Probate/Juvenile Division
      • Richard M. Markus, J.D., Judge, Retired, Court of Appeals, Eighth District
      • Steven H. Steinglass, J.D., Dean Emeritus & Professor Emeritus, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
      • Patrick F. Fischer, J.D., Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio

    Disclaimer

    This website and the referenced research initiatives are private and not a product of The Supreme Court of Ohio, nor have they been approved by the Court.